Trouble logging in?We were forced to invalidate all account passwords. You will have to reset your password to login. If you have trouble resetting your password, please send us a message with as much helpful information as possible, such as your username and any email addresses you may have used to register. Whatever you do, please do not create a new account. That is not the right solution, and it is against our forum rules to own multiple accounts.

I don't know if it can be connected to Rule Z but somewhere Bern said the difference between her and Beatrice is that Bern wants to get a certain result when she tosses a dice (or was it a coin?) while for Beato any result is fine and that this caused a bad affinity between them (I can't find the exact quote though).
So I wonder if Rule Z is connected to Beato not aiming to a definite goal but merely abandoning herself to the wheel of destiny.

Aside from claiming it to be rule Z, that last part has been known for a while. Beatrice only started the game, she probably did not even directly cause any deaths. She, her self, has said she is fine with any way the game ended. This would make it a fine candidate for Rule Z. Her game is definitely what causes murders. People are dying? Better take advantage of that and kill people myself, or maybe kill people to defend myself. People aren't dying? That means someone solved the epitaph, and I want all that gold, better start killing people. Beatrice's game is the cause of the tragedy.

Which "truth" love makes you see? Probably not the truth as I intend it.

Love, at this point in the game, refers to an understanding of someone's reasons for doing something. That's the point of EP7 and why Will was introduced, by understanding Yasu's reasons for all this, he was able to solve her riddles.

In our case however, Love refers to our trust in R07 and that he gave us a mystery that is solvable.

So, in any case, Love is a key component to figuring out the answer. Rule Z acts in opposition to that by disguising Rule X and Y which would lead us to the answer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smeckledorf

Aside from claiming it to be rule Z, that last part has been known for a while. Beatrice only started the game, she probably did not even directly cause any deaths. She, her self, has said she is fine with any way the game ended. This would make it a fine candidate for Rule Z. Her game is definitely what causes murders. People are dying? Better take advantage of that and kill people myself, or maybe kill people to defend myself. People aren't dying? That means someone solved the epitaph, and I want all that gold, better start killing people. Beatrice's game is the cause of the tragedy.

Okay, you're right in saying that Beatrice's game is the cause of the tragedy because it is, but everything else doesn't make sense. Just because she's fine with how the game would end doesn't mean anything because she's in direct control of its events. She's the original GM, the game can't progress without her, so any result it takes is her decision.

Quote:

Originally Posted by unsuspectingvisitor

Did you ever wonder why Beatrice started that epitaph game in the first place?
I am inclined to think that "Love" was the cause. It's "Without love in cannot be seen" thing.

She want to kill off the other persona with the Epitapt game. But someone in love with other persona reacted by killing people.

The "Without Love, it cannont be seen" phrase doesn't really account for much gameboard- wise since the phrase is directed towards us. Notice that it is only spoken by Zepar and Furfur towards us, the audience who is watching the "love battle" unfold.

So, in any case, Love is a key component to figuring out the answer. Rule Z acts in opposition to that by disguising Rule X and Y which would lead us to the answer.

Love is a lot more than a component to understand Beatrice's game: It is the most absolute core cause of it. There would be no gameboard in the first place without love.

Furthermore, Bern's speculations on Rule Z weren't some kind of Red-Text semantics game. All you have to do to make "a love answer for Rule Z" fit Bern's speculations (as you interpret them) is consider that Rule Z isn't defined as "love" precisely, but is instead defined by the old phrase "without love it cannot be seen", or whatever.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ErenselTheJester

The "Without Love, it cannont be seen" phrase doesn't really account for much gameboard- wise since the phrase is directed towards us. Notice that it is only spoken by Zepar and Furfur towards us, the audience who is watching the "love battle" unfold.

The phrase first appeared in EP4 when Okonogi said it to Ange, talking about how he could see Eva as innocent while Ange couldn't.

Also IIRC Zepar and Furfur weren't breaking the 4th wall; they were talking to characters who questioned why the love duel had to happen.

Okay, you're right in saying that Beatrice's game is the cause of the tragedy because it is, but everything else doesn't make sense. Just because she's fine with how the game would end doesn't mean anything because she's in direct control of its events. She's the original GM, the game can't progress without her, so any result it takes is her decision.

A gamemaster can't be in total control or the player would have no chances to win.
Plus a player is allowed to move his piece as he prefers and the game can't move without the player either (When in Ep 3 Battler stopped playing he stilled the game).
Also we are told the GM has to fight the risk of logic errors.
Most likely the difference between the GM and the player is that the GM can move more than one piece at time while the player can move only one at once, plus the GM created the setting in which the piece moves.
As a result it's easier for the GM to influence the play than for the player but the GM still has not complete control (which I guess is what makes this a play between two people and not a play against himself/herself)

Love is a lot more than a component to understand Beatrice's game: It is the most absolute core cause of it. There would be no gameboard in the first place without love.

And may I ask that you provide proof? Because I don't see how Love is required for the gameboard to exist.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wanderer

Furthermore, Bern's speculations on Rule Z weren't some kind of Red-Text semantics game. All you have to do to make "a love answer for Rule Z" fit Bern's speculations (as you interpret them) is consider that Rule Z isn't defined as "love" precisely, but is instead defined by the old phrase "without love it cannot be seen", or whatever.

No one said the Bern's speculation are Red- Text semantics game but that doesn't stop the fact that they are the closest things to being correct, and as such we can't just pay attention to one major detail and forget about the rest. Everything she says is equally important, and she says them so that anybody who reads them would have a pretty good understanding of how Rule Z works and that everybody should be under the same understanding. Basically, my interpretation of Rule Z shouldn't be no different from yours.

With that said, it would be a miracle if you can make a Love answer for Rule Z considering that Love, by how its defined in the phrase, acts completely different from how Bern speculates Rule Z to act. Bern says, and I qoute, "For now, I assumed that Rule Z is a maze- like existence putting haze over the truth. In other words, a maze to not let me come close to Rules X and Y."

How can Love, which is supposed to give you insight to the truth, be a rule that prevents you from getting close to it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjblue1

A gamemaster can't be in total control or the player would have no chances to win.

Not true, I've heard theories say that Battler might not even be moving his own piece. That he's just sitting there watching the game unfold.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjblue1

Plus a player is allowed to move his piece as he prefers and the game can't move without the player either (When in Ep 3 Battler stopped playing he stilled the game).

Again, not true. Beatrice could have continued the game with his quitting counting as a forfeit and his loss. The reason why she paused the game is because she wanted to place him in a trap.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjblue1

Also we are told the GM has to fight the risk of logic errors.
Most likely the difference between the GM and the player is that the GM can move more than one piece at time while the player can move only one at once, plus the GM created the setting in which the piece moves.

This depends on your interpretation of how the game is played. In EP6 Battler authors the gameboard before the game begins, so the game is played in either one of two ways:
1) Erika takes direct control of her piece and changes the events of the game.
2) Erika just sits and watches as the game unfolds.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjblue1

As a result it's easier for the GM to influence the play than for the player but the GM still has not complete control (which I guess is what makes this a play between two people and not a play against himself/herself)

Not that I think Genji doing anything is all that credible, but still. No reds can be applied to R-Prime, if it exists.

Funny thing is that red truths like the one about Battler' being born from Asumu, the one about Sakutaro, or the truth about the diary in Ep8 or the interrupted one from EP7, only make sense if they are intended as red truths regarding the real world. Or at the very least the related persons believe they apply to the real world.

And why Beatrice would be surprised about Sakutaro in EP4? If she believed Sakutaro was the only one in the world, then she wouldn't create a gameboard where he isn't. And then nothing could prevent her from completing the red. So what kind of situation didn't allow her to finish her sentence if not the real situation in Rokkenjima Prime?

Quote:

That's the point of EP7 and why Will was introduced, by understanding Yasu's reasons for all this, he was able to solve her riddles.

Did Will understand the reason because he had love? Or did he just found love as the reason using logic? Frankly I don't think he had any particular love towards Yasu, he was at most merciful, but nothing more than that and all of his reasonings were pretty much rational and detatched.

If we go by the definition of love we've seen so far from the beginning to the end, then love is what makes you think a grey sky is blue, that magic exists and that nobody is a culprit.

In addition to what Renall said, it's really easy to get around reds with Genji since you can abuse them and use them to cheat the same way Ryukishi did with Shkannon. He's furniture, same as they are.

I don't think this is correct either, just for the record. I just think it's interesting and want to see how far I can take it.

Funny thing is that red truths like the one about Battler' being born from Asumu, the one about Sakutaro, or the truth about the diary in Ep8 or the interrupted one from EP7, only make sense if they are intended as red truths regarding the real world. Or at the very least the related persons believe they apply to the real world.

And why Beatrice would be surprised about Sakutaro in EP4? If she believed Sakutaro was the only one in the world, then she wouldn't create a gameboard where he isn't. And then nothing could prevent her from completing the red. So what kind of situation didn't allow her to finish her sentence if not the real situation in Rokkenjima Prime?

I'm paraphrasing ep8, so don't ask me, ask the guy who wrote it.

If you want my personal opinion as to why that contradiction appears to exist, I'm going with "Ryukishi didn't think it out very well and intended for some reds to apply to the 'real world' in ep4 that ultimately would be declared inapplicable or essentially pointless (but not necessarily wrong)."

Hell, I don't even know how that whole Asumu/Kyrie/Battler thing could be independently verified at all. Even if Beatrice believed Battler was Kyrie's son, how exactly did she know it to be true? We have nothing anywhere that gives us any reason to believe it's true short of the narrative leading us along that path. Even if it is true, where did that information come from, how did it get to the people who would use it, and how did they verify it enough to be confident in its status as a red truth?

That red applies to such things, along with arc 7 having Yasu's life depicted as a book, makes me certain that there is no "absolutely prime reality" in Umineko's world.
I don't understand even trying to avoid that conclusion by now...

If you want my personal opinion as to why that contradiction appears to exist, I'm going with "Ryukishi didn't think it out very well and intended for some reds to apply to the 'real world' in ep4 that ultimately would be declared inapplicable or essentially pointless (but not necessarily wrong)."

Hell, I don't even know how that whole Asumu/Kyrie/Battler thing could be independently verified at all. Even if Beatrice believed Battler was Kyrie's son, how exactly did she know it to be true? We have nothing anywhere that gives us any reason to believe it's true short of the narrative leading us along that path. Even if it is true, where did that information come from, how did it get to the people who would use it, and how did they verify it enough to be confident in its status as a red truth?

Hey I agree with you on that, it just doesn't seem to be very consistent.

And the main question here is: "if Beatrice could attempt using red for something related to the real world (which appears to be the case in EP4), and if trying to use it for something that is false would make you choke, even when you believe you are right... then wouldn't that mean she had virtually the power to check the veridicity of all things?!"
Hell... she could have tried to say 'God exists'...

Not true, I've heard theories say that Battler might not even be moving his own piece. That he's just sitting there watching the game unfold.

Battler moved his own piece in EP 2 when he had it 'prove' that Kanon might not have been the one who killed Jessica. Beatrice herself at the beginning of EP 2 asked Battler which was going to be his move.
Bern moved her Erika piece in EP 5 in attempt to corner Natsuhi, though Lambda moved the Battler piece to stop her (Battler wasn't playing so I guess Lambda could move his piece).
Erika moved her own piece so as to create a logic error in Ep 6.

Of course the player can also sit and just let the gamemaster move his own piece too.

I guess it's sort of like playing Sims (a PC simulation game). You can control only one piece at time while the pc hands the others. However if you don't move your own piece the program will force it to move on its own.
Of course, though you can let the computer move it for you... well, at this point you aren't playing anymore.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ErenselTheJester

Again, not true. Beatrice could have continued the game with his quitting counting as a forfeit and his loss. The reason why she paused the game is because she wanted to place him in a trap.

No, apparently not or else Beatrice's forfeiting the game in Ep 4 would have been counted as her loss. Same goes with her being unable to make another game in Ep 5.

Also which was the difference between making Battler lose due to a trap or lose due to quitting?
Plus Virgilia apparently came up with the Sun and wind strategy afterward.

She needs Battler to accept her as a witch to be able to declare his loss.
If he leaves without accepting her he merely stills the game same as she does when she leaves without making him recognize her as a witch.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ErenselTheJester

2) Erika just sits and watches as the game unfolds.
Again, that depends on your interpretation of how the game is played.

And the fact that she knew she murdered Kirye and Co and Battler didn't know, fits into this how?
Battler could have said, 'sorry, I didn't let your piece kill anyone' and he could have added 'sorry, but I didn't let your piece close the door of the room I was in so I can get in and out and you can't notice'.

No, Erika needs to have the possibility to move her own piece when she wants to or there's no game, she just watches Battler playing a solitarie.

Quote:

Originally Posted by unsuspectingvisitor

I think the red truth is like a witness testimony in court cases. You just need evidence to support it.

In Ep 8 the red was defined as a truth in which everyone believed. So either there's already what is judged evidence to support it or it's a well known truth.

In Umineko though they often don't bother providing evidence, in fact Beato says when she uses red she needs no proofs.

However it could be she have proofs, she's merely not showing them to Battler (sort of like when we're told that Erika in Ep 5 actually colllected proofs for her red truth but the narrator wouldn't bother telling us the details of it).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Renall

I'm paraphrasing ep8, so don't ask me, ask the guy who wrote it.

If you want my personal opinion as to why that contradiction appears to exist, I'm going with "Ryukishi didn't think it out very well and intended for some reds to apply to the 'real world' in ep4 that ultimately would be declared inapplicable or essentially pointless (but not necessarily wrong)."

Hell, I don't even know how that whole Asumu/Kyrie/Battler thing could be independently verified at all. Even if Beatrice believed Battler was Kyrie's son, how exactly did she know it to be true? We have nothing anywhere that gives us any reason to believe it's true short of the narrative leading us along that path. Even if it is true, where did that information come from, how did it get to the people who would use it, and how did they verify it enough to be confident in its status as a red truth?

My theory is that the meta battle took place in the mind of a character that was in the future and therefore knew that truth.
It's possible that, after the Rokkenjima incident, people discovered Rudolf switched the babies or believed him to have switched the babies so much it became a truth.
I wonder if the Sakutarou problem was caused by something similar.
When the meta game began the person playing it in his mind believed there was only one Sakutarou but then he discovered either there were more or that Sakutarou could be reincarnated into another vessel as long as it had certain characteristics....

Battler moved his own piece in EP 2 when he had it 'prove' that Kanon might not have been the one who killed Jessica. Beatrice herself at the beginning of EP 2 asked Battler which was going to be his move.
Bern moved her Erika piece in EP 5 in attempt to corner Natsuhi, though Lambda moved the Battler piece to stop her (Battler wasn't playing so I guess Lambda could move his piece).
Erika moved her own piece so as to create a logic error in Ep 6.

In EP2, all actions piece- Battler takes can be considered his own actions as written and determined by Beatrice, Meta- Battler probably had nothing to do with it. Same thing with EP5 and 6. In EP5, the story progressed as Lambda had written it and Bern used Erika's observations to gather clues. In EP6, it was the same way, Erika simply used her piece's actions to catch Battler in a logic error.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjblue1

No, apparently not or else Beatrice's forfeiting the game in Ep 4 would have been counted as her loss. Same goes with her being unable to make another game in Ep 5.

Also which was the difference between making Battler lose due to a trap or lose due to quitting?
Plus Virgilia apparently came up with the Sun and wind strategy afterward.

She needs Battler to accept her as a witch to be able to declare his loss.
If he leaves without accepting her he merely stills the game same as she does when she leaves without making him recognize her as a witch.

Actually, yes, EP2 confirms what I said when Battler quits and believes in the witch. Basically, if Battler doesn't make a move or says that he'll stop playing, that's the equivalent of him saying that he'll stop thinking, which is an automatic loss. Furthermore, his overall goal is to prove Beatrice doesn't exist. By merely quitting, he's allowing Beatrice to do whatever she wants and prove her existence. That's why Beatrice has to do things to ignite his spirit, so that he won't quit.

Now, the Sun and Wind scheme was made- up before the game started. Beatrice knew that Battler would quit on her at some point during the game because he was annoyed at the brutal deaths of his family. So she requested the aid of her former mentor to act as Battler's helper, leaving a seed of good impressions for the witches. This seed will grow once Battler sees Beatrice's regret and acts of compassion and sacrifice, so then by the time the game was over, he would believe that witches were good and would naively sign a contract stating that he believes in them, thus forfeiting the game.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjblue1

And the fact that she knew she murdered Kirye and Co and Battler didn't know, fits into this how?
Battler could have said, 'sorry, I didn't let your piece kill anyone' and he could have added 'sorry, but I didn't let your piece close the door of the room I was in so I can get in and out and you can't notice'.

No, Erika needs to have the possibility to move her own piece when she wants to or there's no game, she just watches Battler playing a solitarie.

Again, Erika is using her piece's observation to do reasoning. Really, her goal should've been to figure out who the culprit is, however she changed that goal for a much more devious one. Knowing that Battler was knew to being Game Master, Bernkastel wanted to prove his incompetence and take control of the game. So she made a plot in which she would try to find holes in his story and catch him in a logic error. However, the story was well- written and she couldn't catch him. That is, until Erika had appealed to him and he wrote in the duct tape seals she requested, thus trapping his character.

And contrary to what you believe, the GM can't just retract moves once they are said in done, especially considering that he/she was the one that wrote them in.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjblue1

I guess it's sort of like playing Sims (a PC simulation game). You can control only one piece at time while the pc hands the others. However if you don't move your own piece the program will force it to move on its own.
Of course, though you can let the computer move it for you... well, at this point you aren't playing anymore.

A better interpretation would be the Author vs Reader theory. It really isn't a theory, though there are bits of pieces of it that have been said that can come together to pretty much give it some definition.

Pretty much, its the idea that Umineko is actually comparing the literary arts, specifically those of Detective Ficton, to games. Authors are called Game Masters and Readers are called Players, characters in the story are referred to as "pieces." Speculations had popped after EP5 and some had taken the form of the Author Theory which had strengthened after EP6.

The theory pretty much states that the Players, contrary to popular belief, don't take control of the pieces rather the Game Master writes a mystery for the Player to solve and the Player uses observations provided by a chosen detective piece to solve it.

People had came to some of these conclusions through several observations:
#1) People have made attempts to try and give the characters set functions like the pieces in chess. However, the nature of the characters change with each game and, even moreso, develops. People have figured that this was odd if it was to be a game.

#2) At the beginning of every episode, except EP1 and EP2, Beatrice had to make preparations for the game. Some saw that this was odd because a game would be easy to set up since the pieces are usually set up in a certain way. People had began to conclude that the pieces are being changed around with each game. This observation was placed more in- depth in EP6 when Battler also had to make preparations.

#3) Some had found it odd that Battler, who should have direct control of his piece, should be able to just move his piece around and make it so that his piece would be located to the next murder or, considering that he doesn't like to see his family die as well as not wanting to blame anyone, could've made it so that a murder couldn't have happened. Naturally, people have thought it was because of his own incompetence, though some had struck it especially odd when his piece never left the cousin's room in EP4 until the end of the game.

#4) The court scene in EP5 had pretty much confirmed each of the games to be Mystery novels when it introduced Knox's Decalogue and had made comparisons to other mysteries in regards of whether Beatrice follows those rules or not. This confirmation was strengthened when Ikuko was introduced in EP6 stating that she had written some of the episodes.

That's a few of them, I think there's more, with #4 being the biggest since that was where the Author Theory came from. Like I said, its not really a theory, its really just a collection of speculations, I just putting them together to make my point.

Personally, I think the amount of control the player has over their piece is just something that R07 didn't think about too much. It's kind of all over the place, so you're probably better off not thinking about it.

In E2, Battler and Meta-Battler practically seem to be the same entity. Meta-Battler starts to accept Beatrice at the same time as Battler does, Battler presents theories that Meta-Battler proposes, and so on. There's even a point where it's heavily suggested that Rosa actually hears something Battler intended for Beatrice (the 'You stay silent!' line).

Then in E3 and E4, all evidence points to Meta-Battler having absolutely no control over Battler, and his role is only to argue with Beatrice in the separate meta-world.

In E5 and 6, Erika and Meta-Erika actually seem to be exactly the same being, like Battler and Meta-Battler. The piece Erika in E6 is even shown talking to Dlanor and popping in and out of the game board to confirm red truths and such. Plus Erika can do things without Meta-Battler's knowledge. E6 gives much more of an impression of an even footing between Battler and Erika, actually, as they seem to have a fairly equal amount of control over the game board. Battler's piece in these games is also weird, as it seems like Bern and Lamba are constantly switching control over it in E5. In E6, Meta-Battler seems to have direct control over it.

Then E8 doesn't even bother trying to differentiate between the meta and the game board.

I really don't see how you could possibly come to a consistent conclusion about the rules of the game with all this conflicting information. You're probably better off just enjoying each episode as it is.

And may I ask that you provide proof? Because I don't see how Love is required for the gameboard to exist.

Really?

In this case I'm talking about romantic love of Shannon/Beatrice for Battler, you know; not the "without love it cannot be seen" kind of love.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ErenselTheJester

No one said the Bern's speculation are Red- Text semantics game but that doesn't stop the fact that they are the closest things to being correct, and as such we can't just pay attention to one major detail and forget about the rest. Everything she says is equally important, and she says them so that anybody who reads them would have a pretty good understanding of how Rule Z works and that everybody should be under the same understanding. Basically, my interpretation of Rule Z shouldn't be no different from yours.

With that said, it would be a miracle if you can make a Love answer for Rule Z considering that Love, by how its defined in the phrase, acts completely different from how Bern speculates Rule Z to act. Bern says, and I qoute, "For now, I assumed that Rule Z is a maze- like existence putting haze over the truth. In other words, a maze to not let me come close to Rules X and Y."

"Assumed" is the keyword here. Misleads through characters' mistaken assumptions are very common in RK07's style. Bern's speculation is not the absolute Word of God.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ErenselTheJester

How can Love, which is supposed to give you insight to the truth, be a rule that prevents you from getting close to it?

Bern doesn't understand Rule Z so naturally she sees it as an obstacle.

Also, as I was trying to say earlier, just say the rule is "love is needed" and the logic contradiction that you are claiming is suddenly no longer valid.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ErenselTheJester

Again, Erika is using her piece's observation to do reasoning. Really, her goal should've been to figure out who the culprit is, however she changed that goal for a much more devious one. Knowing that Battler was knew to being Game Master, Bernkastel wanted to prove his incompetence and take control of the game. So she made a plot in which she would try to find holes in his story and catch him in a logic error. However, the story was well- written and she couldn't catch him. That is, until Erika had appealed to him and he wrote in the duct tape seals she requested, thus trapping his character.

This does not adequately address jjblue1's point: If Meta-Battler is the sole creator of EP6 and controls Piece-Erika just like everyone else, how the hell did Piece-Erika kill Kyrie and company without Meta-Battler knowing?